VDA Testimony to SD House State Affairs Committee Hearing on Feb 14 in Opposition to HB 1244

On February 14, I testified (in person) before the SD House State Affairs Committee in Pierre and delivered the following statement in opposition to House Bill 1244:

“Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Zebadiah Johnson, I am from Garretson, South Dakota, and I am here on behalf of the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota as their political director and lobbyist.  The VDA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan political organization that works to defend the ballot initiative rights of South Dakotans.

We strongly urge you to reject House Bill 1244. This legislation would cause a sudden disruption to the signature gathering process and undermine the constitutional ballot initiative rights of the people of South Dakota. 

There are four main reasons why you should vote against this bill.

First and foremost, HB 1244 includes an emergency clause which would make it effective immediately. That means it would apply to ongoing signature gathering campaigns in South Dakota. The petition deadline is less than three months away and there are plenty of signature drive campaigns underway beyond the ones described by Rep. hansen. A sudden change to the rules at this late hour could cause serious disruptions for both petitioners and election officials at the Secretary of State’s office. 

Second, even if it took effect next year, this bill would still be a mistake from a public policy perspective. 

In other states where similar laws have passed, phenomena known as “withdrawal campaigns” have occurred. Often, they are designed to thwart the ability of initiative proponents to gauge their progress towards ballot qualification, making it nearly impossible to maintain an accurate record of valid signatures on the petition. In other words, a withdrawal process can be abused.

Also, it’s worth noting that signing a petition is not a concrete show of support for the policy being proposed. It means that the question is important enough to be submitted to the voters of South Dakota. If you oppose a ballot question, you always have the option of voting no in November.

Third, HB 1244 would be the most extreme version of signature withdrawal in the country Since the signature withdrawal process allows for signature withdrawals after an initiative has qualified for the ballot. Idaho and Utah are two other states that allow signature withdrawals, however those withdrawals must come before certification for the ballot.

Fourth, this bill creates the potential for litigation regarding the constitutionality of the withdrawal process. The state of Florida used to have a law like this, codified in 2007 in a very similar form to this. The law was ruled unconstitutional less than three years after its passage because the Florida Supreme Court found that the policy was not a “neutral regulation of the petition process.” We think that there is a risk that this could be another lawsuit where South Dakota taxpayers are paying legal bills so that lawyers can argue against the voters’ own initiative rights.

South Dakota is the birthplace of the American ballot initiative, an idea that ensures that our government is beholden to the people and not the other way around. This bill is an attempt to limit the people’s right to self governance and direct democracy as laid out in South Dakota’s Constitution.

Thank you.”

[END]